All are invited to Sept. 22 event at state Capitol to show support

Traditional marriage, parental rights, religious liberty and the humanity of the unborn — many of the great religions of the world agree on these four pillars of moral truth that are increasingly under attack in all segments of society.

The good news is, there are Colorado legislators working to defend these moral principles.

Catholic priests from the Denver and Colorado Springs dioceses will join other religious leaders from a variety of faith traditions to encourage these lawmakers at the annual Pillar Project gathering, set for 10 a.m. Saturday, Sept. 22 on the west steps of the state Capitol.

“Although [the religious leaders] don’t share unity of faith, as the heads of their respective assemblies, they stand in solidarity for the defense of the pillars they believe are indispensable for the welfare of society,” said Aaron Robertson, Pillar Project founder and president. “That’s what this is in a nutshell.”

The event is sponsored by the public advocacy group the Patriot League, which promotes the common good of society through the advancement of America’s founding principles.

All are invited to the free, family friendly, one-hour event.

“Come if you believe in these principles and you want to do something meaningful for those defending them,” said Robertson, who is an evangelical Christian, husband and father. “It may be the best opportunity people have to express appreciation and support to legislators fighting for these shared principles.”

The program includes short talks by legislators. State Sen. John Cooke will speak on traditional marriage and religious liberty. State Rep. Shane Sandridge, will address parental rights, and state Rep. Cole Wist, assistant minority leader, will reflect on the humanity of the unborn. Sandridge and Wist are Catholic parishioners.

“We’ll also be presenting Friend of Motherhood awards,” Robertson said, explaining that the awards underscore the essential role mothers play in society and how the pillar principles uphold and are interwoven in the role of motherhood.

“That’s a special time where Colorado mothers present legislators awards to say thanks for their commitment to the pillar principles,” Robertson said.

The religious leaders include Catholic, evangelical and orthodox Christians, Muslims and Jews who actively lead more than 167,000 Colorado citizens from 42 towns and cities, Robertson said.

Father Andrew Kemberling, pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Parish in Denver, is the Catholic liaison for the Pillar Project. He urges all Catholic faithful to attend the event.

“This is a nonthreatening way to get to know who your legislators are,” he said. “It’s very welcoming and creates a feeling of good will as [people of different faiths] support what unites us.”

The pillars are in line with Church teaching and advocating for them is critical, Father Kemberling said.

In June, Phillips, the Christian owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, won a U.S. Supreme Court case (7-2) against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission over his refusal, based on his religious convictions, to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Shortly after Phillip’s high court win, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission again sued Masterpiece Cakeshop charging it discriminated against a transsexual last year by refusing to make a cake to celebrate the anniversary of her gender transition.

Fighting back, last month Phillips filed a federal lawsuit accusing the state of “anti-religious hostility” against him and asked the U.S. District Court in Denver to overturn the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s recent ruling, ABC News reported.

“Even after the Supreme Court said [the Civil Rights Commission’s] behavior was wrong, they went after him again!” Father Kemberling said. “That’s why we need to attend the Pillar Project event. Our support of these legislators can change how such commissions are put together and whether to fund them. Our religious freedom is under attack.”

Sign up for a digital subscription to Denver Catholic!

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips spoke these words to the Denver Catholic after the Supreme Court ruled in his favor June 4 regarding his choice not to write a message about same-sex marriage on a wedding cake because it contradicted his beliefs.

He added, “That day, I told the two gentlemen I would sell them anything in my shop. That was a message that I couldn’t create.”

Amid the great amount of criticism Phillips has received since the court’s ruling, an abounding number of critics have considered him a bigot and compared him to a racist or slave holder.

Yet, Jeremy Tedesco, the baker’s attorney, said that the Supreme Court emphasized that Jack’s case is entirely different from that of discrimination or racism.

“It’s important for people to understand that we faced this argument all the time, in the Supreme Court and in the lower courts,” Tedesco said. “And for the Supreme Court to rule for Jack, despite the fact that the other side was making that comparison [to racism and discrimination] all the time, sends an important message.

“[The Supreme Court] said that tying Jack to racists and slavery is offensive – it’s disparaging of his religious beliefs.”

Court’s decision ‘a benefit for everyone’

The hostility against Phillips’ faith that was present in Colorado’s lower courts led the Supreme Court to rule in his favor, Tedesco said. The decision is meant to protect not just religious believers, but all citizens, from a government that attempts to decide what groups can and cannot exercise their rights, he said.

A great problem for Colorado is that the state’s Civil Rights Division is “playing favorites” when it comes to the one’s right to decline to create something that goes against one’s beliefs, Tedesco stated.

“The government shouldn’t force artists to create art that is inconsistent with their beliefs. The government has no business dictating the content of an artist’s expression,” he added. “That is a freedom that benefits everybody, not just the people who are religious.”

A 2015 precedent influenced the Supreme Court’s decision for Phillips. In a previous case, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled in favor of a Denver bakery saying it was not discriminating when refusing to make a cake with an anti-gay message because it had the right to.

“The Supreme Court determined that the unequal treatment was part of the reason why [the previous decision against Jack] violated his free exercise rights. That discriminatory enforcement of the law showed the religious targeting against Jack and the hostility of Colorado,” the attorney pointed out.

In other words, Phillips was expected to accept others’ non-Christian beliefs, but he could not expect others to accept his.

The government shouldn’t force artists to create art that is inconsistent with their beliefs. The government has no business dictating the content of an artist’s expression. That is a freedom that benefits everybody, not just the people who are religious.”

“The court reaffirmed that religious hostility towards people of faith has no place in our society… [and] that people like Jack have honorable beliefs – like the belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman – that deserve tolerance and respect in our society,” he continued.

Is it still discrimination?

The Supreme Court’s decision to treat this case differently from that of discrimination has not stopped the allusions to the argument, especially from much of the media and LGBTQ groups.

In response, Father Angel Perez, Assistant Professor at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, told the Denver Catholic that a key distinction should be made when analyzing these two cases – mainly the difference between avoiding collaborating in something that is morally wrong versus actually doing something that is morally wrong.

“Someone who refuses to make a cake for a same-sex wedding is only trying not to collaborate with an act that he or she believes is morally wrong,” he explained. “But refusing to provide a service to someone [because of their skin color] is not about collaborating in something morally wrong, it’s actually doing something that is morally wrong. Doing so would be saying that the other person is not of the same dignity as others.”

This means that choosing not to cooperate in an act one believes is morally wrong does not violate the dignity of the other person, but only disagrees with the act the other person is doing.

“Under this light, the baker’s case is a true case of religious liberty because there is a foundation of truth to that which he believes,” he said. “He has a reasonable explanation for why he believes that act is not morally good. In the case of discrimination, however, a foundation of truth is missing, which means that it’s a direct attack on the equal dignity of all citizens.”

The Church and LGBTQ issues

Father Perez says that just because the Church has reasons to hold that homosexual acts do not reflect the dignity of the human person or the truth of human sexuality, it does not mean that the Church hates or does not accept people who believe or act on these inclinations.

“We must remember something very important – that the Church loves homosexuals, she loves people with sexual-identity crises. She loves all sinners like a mother,” he said. “A mother wants the good for her children and because she loves them, she corrects and guides them. The Church loves us, and precisely because she loves us, she shows us the truth – what she knows is best for us.

“That doesn’t mean that she’s exclusive. The doors are open to everyone. In fact, everyone in the Church – including myself – are sinners.”

Yet, love and mercy require truth, he said: “Mercy is only a false compassion if it contains no truth. True mercy brings us out of our misery. Mercy needs the truth to pull us out of our misery, of our sin, and call us to conversion, as Jesus Christ did.”